The Biden administration is currently in closed door talks to prohibit hunting and fishing from over 2 million acres of public land. Why? Because they are settling privately with a lawsuit from an animal rights organization.

"The lawsuit specifically targets eight of those refuges in Montana, Arizona, Texas, Florida, Kansas, Indiana, and South Dakota, but could affect many more if the whole executive order from the Trump Administration is overturned."

Sounds like another attempt from the democrats to attempt to overturn Trump's policy. If they wanted to fight this lawsuit they would, but instead they are settling behind closed doors and there's nothing me or you can do about it.

I rely on public land for all the freelance hunting we do. Eliminating hunting from 2.3 million acres of public land hits way too close to home.

https://www.themeateater.com/conser...some-public-lands-to-hunting-and-fishing

Call your legislators today guys!!

They hate that meat from the store comes from a farm. They hate that the rest of the meat comes from the wild. They hate that fish are commercially taken, they hate that individuals might provide a meal while admitting that they enjoy fishing. They hate us for eliminating predators, they hate us for bird hunting, and they hate us for mentioning feral cats are invasive predators decimating wild animals and spreading disease.


They’re something alright.

" they hate individuals"

Absolute truth !!

Unfortunately you hit the nail on the head. Full and total dependence on government is their final goal. Closing public land to fishing and hunting is a direct threat to our individuality and freedom in this country.

Closing all the land Trump opened up?

Yes

Its called "friendly litigation".

Agency or entity captured by the left but restricted from effecting the change they want gets an allied activist group to file suit, ideally in a court of favorable jurisdiction. Then through either lack of argument in defense or through settlement or consent decree the two parties agree to the desired changes.

IMO, the judiciary has become part and parcel of this charade.

Don't worry. Some Trump hater on here will be along shortly to explain it's the Republicans fault for having him as a candidate.

lol

I have to say it again, its part of agenda 21 . Many of the refuges have been developed by the purchasing of public land by the government. Or worse yet taken by enimant domain. The animal right lawsuit is just a Trojan horse to grab more control of land. Higher food costs, inflation and taxing us into bankruptcy is of course part of the plan .I know I'm preaching h to the choir. I truly believe this is what the apostle Paul was talking about in ephesians 6:12. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against priceapalities against powers against rulers of darkness of this would, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Sad but true.

"Don't ever forget my "Bad People" hypothesis: The Left can't control itself because they think you are bad people with ideas, not people with bad ideas." - Dan Bongino

Did you not say you were dependent on government land?

Sure do

Dirt, Sir:
Actually he said public land not govt. land. This may seem like semantics but there is a big difference in the publics deer and the Kings deer. I felt compelled to comment due to the fact that my own state was sited in the OP's posting. Here in Indiana all wildlife is the property of the people of the state of Indiana. Exceptions are made for wildlife committing or about to commit harm or damage to an individuals property or livestock.

After that I'll say I'll do what I want on my land and let any govt. entity charge me with a crime if they so choose. The burden of proof rests on the accuser, not an easy task. I want to talk to my lawyer, don't want bail, you keep, feed, house me till I'm in front of a judge.
Case

The general public would be surprised how much tax payer$ is funneled to the lefts organizations "through friendly litigations" . File a suit settle out of court for millions. Looks legit at face value. A lot of funding for tree huggers and anti hunting organizations comes this way.

I can't stand that idiot.

yesssssssssssss

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-HQ-NWRS-2021-0027-0467

I don't mean to be this way, and I am prepared for all the hate comments, but we shouldn't just read what somebody says and assume the worst. The way that the GOV works is that unless it's an emergency, ALL CHANGES must follow a certain path before they can get enacted. There is no "private settling going on" with non profits, for profits or any other non-gov entity, for MeatEater to publish that is beyond disappointing and just fear mongering. It's also important to not blanket copy messages and just put your name in it and hope that it does something, personalized different messages are the way to go about this. It also looks like this is not something new at all, and has been one of the disputed things since the proposed rule took comments and went into effect.

The argument that the group is using presents a few issues for everybody, number 1 they are using the only angle (lead ammo) they have to try and get hunting overturned. Number 2, they bring up a perfectly valid point in that if you cant use lead shotgun ammo, why can you use lead rifle ammo. The worst thing that is going to come out of this is that you cannot use lead ammunition so close to water, or a full out ban on lead ammo. The FWS already received, noted and said that it understood the positions of worrying about lead ammunition, so they are pretty much good to go.